Delhi District Court
State vs . Gurucharan Singh on 30 April, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN, MM08
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT
State Vs. Gurucharan Singh
FIR No.530/01
PS: Kirti Nagar
U/S: 324 IPC
Sr. no. of the case : 1102/1
Date of commission of offence : 02.09.01
Date of institution of the case : 28.01.02
Name of the complainant : Sandeep Kumar s/o
Rohtas Singh r/o 1/12,
Laxmi Nagar, New
Delhi
Name of accused and address : Gurucharan Singh s/o
Sh. Bariyan Singh r/o
2A/8, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi
Offence complained of or proved : U/S 324 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 30.04.2011
J U D G M E N T:
1. Brief facts of the prosecution story is that on 02.09.01 at about FIR no. 530/01 State vs Gurcharan Singh 1/11 2 11:25 PM near SD public school, Rama Road, Kirti Nagar within the jurisdiciton of PS Kirti Nagar the accused voluntarily caused simple hurt with a kirpan on the person of complainant Sanjeev.
2. Charge u/s 324 IPC was framed against the accused on 24.07.02 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has cited 7 witnesses in support of its case and out of them 6 witnesses have been examined.
4. PW1 Sandeep Kumar has deposed that he do not remember the date ,month but the year was 2001. He further deposed that at that time he was student of B.Com second year. He further deposed that he alongwith his friend Sanjeev were coming from Gurudwara Bangla Shahib on scooter and going towards the house. He further deposed that when he reached near S.D.public school, one person Sardar Gurcharan Singh came on his Kinetic Honda and he put his scooter in front of his scooter and started abusing him and hit him on his leg at back thai and also hit the tyre of his scooter by the kirpan and torn both the tyres. He further deposed that he also tried to hit his friend Sanjeev. He further deposed that his friend took him to Khetrapal hospital and some public persons made a call to the police. He further deposed that police recorded his statement. He further deposed that the kirpan was seized and the FIR no. 530/01 State vs Gurcharan Singh 2/11 3 accused was arrested and his personal search was also conducted.
5. He was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel wherein he deposed that he used to go Gurudwara prior to that incident also. He further deposed that he saw the accused in his handicap scooter and one lady alongwith children were also with him. He further deposed that he cannot tell the age of children. He further deposed that when the accused hit him by his kirpan, he became unconscious and he cannot tell the exact time when he was removed to hospital. He further deposed that he was discharged from the hospital after 2 days. He further deposed that his friend made a PCR call and the accused was arrested from his house on the same day. He further deposed that the accused was not arrested in his presence as he was admitted in the hospital. He further deposed that the Kirpan was not seized in his presence. He further admitted that the signatures on the seizure memo of Kirpan bears his signatures at point A. He further deposed that IO brought the accused in the hospital and arrested vide Ex. PW1/D. He further deposed that he have seen the scooter in the gali but he do not know the house of the accused. He further denied that he was teasing the daughter and wife of Gurcharan Singh and accused Gurcharan Singh had turned the handle of his scooter towards him due to which he had lost his balance and of his own fell FIR no. 530/01 State vs Gurcharan Singh 3/11 4 upon the sharp edge of the trolley of the scooter.
6. PW2 Sanjeev has deposed on the same lines of PW1 Sandeep. He was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel wherein he deposed that they were coming from Gurudwara Bangla Sahib. He further deposed that the Sandeep is residing at the distance from his house. He further deposed that two children and one lady were sitting on the pillion on the scooter of the accused. He further deposed that he had not called the PCR. He further deposed that he had taken the injured to the hospital on a three wheeler at about 11:30 PM. He further deposed that they had reached the PS at about 12 mid night. He further deposed that police officials had called the accused persons to the PS. He further deposed that police official had also brought the kirpan alongwith the accused. He further deposed that he remained in the PS till 4 am. He further deposed that he had not gone back to the spot alongwith the IO. He further denied that he had only gone to the PS alongwith the parents of the injured. He further denied that the injured was teasing the daughter of the accused or that the accused had turned his handle due to which injured fell down on the sharp edge of the trolly of the scooter and sustained injuries.. He further deposed that the Kirpan was not sealed in his presence.
FIR no. 530/01 State vs Gurcharan Singh 4/11 5
7. PW3 R.K.Singhal , Manager, Administration Department, Khetrapal hospital has deposed that he know the signatures of Dr. Anil Khetrapal as he have seen signatures and writing of Dr. Khetrapal during the course of his official duty. He further deposed that on 03.09.01 injured Sandeep was brought by Surender Kumar with alleged assault. He further deposed that nature of injury were simple and sharp. He was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel wherein he deposed that he is looking after the complete administration of the hospital. He further deposed that the Dr. Khetrapal is wanted in some case by PS Kirti Nagar. He further deposed that MLC no. E1588/01 and same is mentioned in the register alongwith the carbon copy of the MLC.
8. PW4 HC Ram Narain has deposed that on 02.09.01 he was in emergency duty in PS Kirti Nagar. He further deposed that at about 11:20 PM one call was received in the PS and he alongwith the SI V.P.Singh had reached at S.D.Public School. He further deposed that they received a message that the injured was removed to Khetrapal hospital and thereafter they went to the hospital and met injured Sandeep Kumar. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement and prepared the tehrir and he was sent to the PS for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he had given the rukka to the IO but he do not remember FIR no. 530/01 State vs Gurcharan Singh 5/11 6 the place. He further deposed that no other investigation was conducted in his presence. Ld. APP for the State has cross examined the witness wherein he admitted that after handing over the rukka to the IO he alongwith IO and the complainant had gone to the house of the accused and the accused was arrested and his personal search of the accused . He admitted that the IO seized one kirpan from the accused.
9. He was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel wherein he deposed that they reached at hospital at about 11;45 PM. He further deposed that the IO had sent the rukka at about 12:30 am He further deposed that he had reached the PS at about 12:45 am and had remained at about half an hour. He further deposed that he had reached the hospital again before 1:30 am. He further deposed that there were one/two more persons besides himself, IO and injured in the house of the accused. He further deposed that he do not remember if the injured was discharged from the hospital when he accompanied the IO to the house of the accused. He further deposed that he alongwith IO had gone on a two wheeler scooter but he do not remember who was driving the scooter. He further deposed that the injured had gone on his own conveyance. He further deposed that the injured had reached the house of the accused alongwith the 3 accused persons prior to them. He further deposed that FIR no. 530/01 State vs Gurcharan Singh 6/11 7 he do not remember whether there was any female member or not. He further deposed that IO had taken the injured to the spot in his presence. He further deposed that accused brought the kirpan but he do not remember the place from where he brought the same. He further stated that arrest was made in the PS and the sketch of the kirpan was prepared in the house of the accused.
10. Pw5 HC Surender is the duty officer and has proved the copy of FIR. He was cross examined wherein he stated that he had not received any telephonic call and same was received by another DO HC Pushpinder Pal Singhat 11:27 PM and same was recorded by him as DD no. 31. He further deposed that he took half an hour in writing the FIR.
11. PW6 Retd. Inspector Braham Pal Singh has deposed that on the intervening night of 2/3.09.01 at around 11 PM after receiving the DD no. 13 A he alongwith Ct. Ram Narain reached at SD public school. He further deposed on the spot no clue was found. He further deposed that DD no. 33 A was received from the hospital about the injured that he was admited in that hospital and he reached at the hospital and collected the MLC of the injured. He further deposed that he prepared the rukka on the statement of Sandeep and same was handed over to Ct. Ram Narain for registration of FIR. He further deposed that they alongwith Sandeep FIR no. 530/01 State vs Gurcharan Singh 7/11 8 and Sanjeev reached at the spot where he prepared the rough site plan at the instance of Sandeep. He further deposed that he alonwith Ct. Ram Narain and injured reached at the house of accused and arrested him. He further deposed that he also seized one kirpan worn by the accused at that time was also seized. He further deposed that relative of the accused was informed and he was released on bail.
12. He was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel wherein he deposed that when he reached at the spot the scooter of the injured was lying there and the same was taken to the PS. He further deposed that he reached at the hospital at about 11:30 PM alongwith Ct. Ram Narain. He further deposed that he met the injured Sandeep and Sanjeev in the hospital. He further deposed that they remained in the hospital for 1015 minutes and obtained the MLC of the injured Sandeep. He further deposed that the he sent the tehrir from the hospital through Ct. Ram Narain and returned back at the spot alongwith the injured Sandeep and his friend Sanjeev. He further deposed that he do not know at what time Ct. Ram Narain returned back at the spot after registration of FIR. He further deposed that the he alongwith Ct. Ram Narain and injured Sandeep reached at the house of the accused at about 12:20 AM. He further deposed that the wife and brother of the accused was present in FIR no. 530/01 State vs Gurcharan Singh 8/11 9 the house. He further deposed that the accused was brought to the PS from his house and he was arrested in the police station. He further deposed that he went to the house of the accused on the spot by his personal scooter. He further deposed that personal search of the accused was conducted in the PS in presence of Ct. Ram Narain and injured Sandeep. He further deposed that kirpan was taken out from the possession of the accused in his house only He further denied the suggestion that the injured was not present at the time of preparation of seizure memo and the personal search memo. Thereafter, PE was closed.
13. Statement of accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C has been recorded in which he has stated that all the allegations levelled upon him are false and fabricated and he further stated that he did not wish to lead any defence evidence.
14. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
15. Pw2 Sandeep has deposed in his cross examination that the accused was not arrested in his presence as he was admitted in the hospital and the accused was arrested on the same date whereas PW6 Retd. SI Brahampal Singh has deposed in his cross examination that the accused was arrested from his house and he alongwith Ct. Ram Narain FIR no. 530/01 State vs Gurcharan Singh 9/11 10 and injured Sandeep reached at the house of the accused . Both the statement are contradictory and hence the testimony of both the witnesses does not gain the confidence.
16. Further, PW1 Sandeep has deposed that the kirpan was seized in his presence and he again told that it was seized at the time of arrest however at one place he had stated that he was not present at the time of arrest of the accused where as again he stated that the kirpan was seized at the time of arrest of the accused and it was seized in his presence. Both the statement could not be true as one statement shows that he witness Sandeep was present at the time of arrest and other statement shows that he was not present. The fact also remains that arrest memo bears the signatures of the witness Sandeep Kumar. Since the witness is giving two different versions, his testimony is not reliable.
17. Pw2 Sanjeev has deposed in his cross examination that he never went back to the spot alongwith the IO whereas as IO Inspector Brahm Pal Singh has deposed that he alongwith Sandeep and Sanjeev reached at the spot. Both the statements are contradictory.
18. Further, PW4 HC Ram Narain has deposed that the accused brought the kirpan but he do not remember the place from where he brought the same whereas Pw6 IO Insp. Braham Pal Singh has deposed FIR no. 530/01 State vs Gurcharan Singh 10/11 11 that he seized the kirpan worn by the accused. Both the statements are different.
19. PW1 Sandeep that he was discharged from the hospital after 2 days whereas PW2 stated that they had reached the PS at about 12 midnight. PW4 Ct. Ram Narain in his cross examination stated that he reached the hospital back at about 1:30 am after registration of FIR. PW2 Sanjeev has stated above that they reached at PS at about 12 midnight. All the versions of the all the three witness cannot be true as if the statement of PW2 Sanjeev is believed upon, then why would the constable go back to hospital when the injured and PW2 Sanjeev were already there in the hospital. The testimony of PW1 Sandeep is altogether different. He states that he was discharged after 2 days. There are lot of discrepancies in the testimony of witness which is unexplained.
20. Keeping in view the background of observations mentioned above, it would be unsafe to conclude that he accused is guilty of the offence u/s 324 IPC. Accused is given benefit of doubt. Accused is acquitted for the charge framed for the offence u/s 324 IPC.
Announced in the open (Vandana Jain)
court on 30.04.2011 MM08/West/Delhi
FIR no. 530/01 State vs Gurcharan Singh 11/11
12
FIR No: 530/01
PS: Kirti Nagar
30.04.2011
Present: Ld. APP for the state
Accused with counsel
Vide separate judgment, accused is acquitted. Surety stands discharged. Provision of section 437(a) Cr.P.C be complied with. Previous surety shall remain as surety for six months from the date of passing of judgment. File be consigned to record room.
Vandana Jain
MM08/West/Delhi
30.04.2011
FIR no. 530/01 State vs Gurcharan Singh 12/11