Delhi District Court
State vs . Abhash Etc on 22 November, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN, MM08
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT
State Vs. Abhash etc
FIR No.360/99
PS: Kirti Nagar
U/S: 341/323/325/506(ii)/34 IPC
Sr. no. of the case : 745/1
Date of commission of offence : 13.08.99
Date of institution of the case : 15.02.2000
Name of the complainant : Sindo Devi w/o Radhey Shyam r/o
Jhuggi no. B123, M.S.Garden,
Delhi
Name of accused and address : 1) Abhas s/o Rajpati Singh r/o
Jhuggi no. B 174175, M.S.Garden,
Delhi
2) Prabhas s/o Rajpati Singh r/o
B105/74, M.S.Garden, Delhi
Offence complained of or proved : U/S 341/323/325/506(ii)/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted
Date of judgment : 22.11.2011
J U D G M E N T:
1. Brief facts of the prosecution story is that on 8:30 PM on 13.08.99 in front FIR NO: 360/99 State vs Abhash etc 1 /9 2 of jhuggi no. B123, Bblock, M.S.Garden both the accused persons in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained complainant Sindo Devi and her husband Radhey Shyam and caused simple hurt t o Radhey Shyam and grievous hurt to Sindo Devi and also threatened to kill Sindo Devi and her husband Radhey Shyam.
2. Charge u/s 341/323/325/506(ii)/34 IPC was framed against the accused on 04.02.02 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has cited 6 witnesses in support of its case and all of them have been examined.
4. PW1 HC Veer Singh is the duty officer and has proved the contents of FIR.
5. PW2 Sindo Devi deposed that on 13.08.99 at about 8:30 PM she returned to her house from the factory and she sent her husband for bringing the milk. She further deposed that in the mean time one boy Abhash came in her house and stopped her way and started abusing her and pulled her hair and took her out on the road and hit her due to which she fell down on the road and the other accused Prabhash was also there and started beating and abusing her. She further deposed that the accused caught hold of her left hand finger and turned it forcefully due to which it break down and they both started beating her with fist and slaps on her face and threatened her that if she alongwith her husband demanded money for vacating the jhuggi, they will kill them. She further deposed that in the mean time her husband came and the accused also threatened her husband. She further deposed that police reached at the FIR NO: 360/99 State vs Abhash etc 2 /9 3 spot and recorded her statement and both the accused persons were arrested. She further deposed that the accused Abhash was arrested on 14.08.99 and accused Prabhash was arrested on 17.08.99 She further deposed that police removed them to the DDU hospital where they were medically examined.
6. She was cross examined by the ld. defence counsel wherein she stated that number of person gathered at the spot. She denied the suggestion that the accused persons has not threatened her and her family members. She further denied the suggestion that accused has not committed house tresspass. She further stated that it takes 1520 minutes by foot to reach at the spot from her house. She further stated that her husband met her at PS. She further denied the suggestion that the accused persons never gave beatings to her husband. She further stated that she alone went to PS.
7. PW3 Radhey Shyam deposed that on 13.08.99 at about 8:30 PM his wife returned to the house from the factory and he was sent by her wife for bringing the milk. She further deposed that after some time when he returned back, he saw that his wife was not in house and she was outside the house on the road and both the accused persons were given beatings to her. He further deposed when he obstructed they gave beatings to him . He further deposed that accused Abhash pulled down hairs of his wife and hit her on the road and accused Prabhash turned the finger of her wife and broke the same and both threatened that they will get their jhuggi vacated forcefully and kill them. He further deposed that police reached at the spot and both were removed to hospital for medical examination.
FIR NO: 360/99 State vs Abhash etc 3 /9 4
8. He was cross examined by the ld defence counsel wherein he stated when the scuffle took place he was able to see from the far of distance as well as the near distance but at present he can see only the persons or things by his side. He further deposed that the quarrel took place at about 6 PM. He further stated that after taking the milk, he reached at his residence within 30 minutes. He further stated that the quarrel took place near his jhuggi, in the way and took place in his residence. He further stated that number of persons reached at PS before his arrival at PS and police recorded the statement of Prabhat.
9. PW3 Ct. Narinder deposed that on 17.08.99, he alongwith SI N.C.Thakur were in the investigation and reached at BBlock Mansarover Garden and meet complainant Sindo Devi. He further deposed that the complainant Sindo Devi tell them about the accused Prabhas and they arrested the accused Prabhas at the instance of the complainant.
10. Pw4 HC Umed Singh deposed that on 13.08.99 after receiving the DD no. 22 A and 26 A, he alongwith SI NC Thakur reached the spot where they meet complainant Sindo Devi and her husband namely Radhey Shyam. He further deposed that he went to DDU hospital for medical examination. He further deposed that on that day complainant could not give her statement and on 14.08.99 complainant Sindo Devi gave her statement and prepared rukka on the same. He further deposed that rukka was handed over to him for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, IO N.C.Thakur prepared the rough site plan and arrested the accused Abhas and personal FIR NO: 360/99 State vs Abhash etc 4 /9 5 search was conducted.
11. Pw5 Dr. Rakesh Kumar deposed that on 14.08.99 he was posted in DDU hospital in the department of Radiology and he had examined Xray of patient Sindo Devi . He further deposed that there was fracture of middle phalanx of 4th digit of left hand.
12. PW6 Deshraj, record clerk, DDU hospital proved the MLC no. 7222 in respect of injured Sindo Devi and is a witness of proceedings only.
13. Statement of accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C has been recorded in which they have stated that all the allegations levelled upon them are false and fabricated and they further stated that they wish to lead defence evidence.
14. DW1 Dolly deposed that on 12.08.99 she was admitted in Lady Harding hospital and gave birth to a female child on 13.08.99 and discharged from the hospital on 14.08.99 and the accused Prabhas was with her from 12.08.99 to 14.08.99 and the accused never went anywhere. She further deposed that her husband has been falsely implicated as her husband had to take some money from Radhey Shyam , husband of the Sindo Devi and Radhey Shyam used to threatened her husband whenever the accused demanded his money back.
15. She was cross examined by the ld. APP for the State wherein she stated that she had not filed any complaint before any authority including concerned SHO, court or any superior authority regarding false involvement of her husband in this case. She FIR NO: 360/99 State vs Abhash etc 5 /9 6 further stated that she have not brought any document to show that she was admitted in the hospital on 12.08.99 and was discharged on 14.08.99.
16. DW2 Vinay Kumar deposed that on 13.08.99 he alongwith accused Abhash had gone to Gurgaon for unloading the stones there from Rajouri Garden and they had left t he Rajouri Garden and about 33:30 PM and they came back to Delhi about 1010:30 PM.
17. He was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein he stated that he is not a summoned witness and he appeared in the court on the calling of the accused. He further stated that he do not know the registration number of vehicle on which they had gone to gurgaon for unloading the same and he cannot show any document to show that he was working as labourer at a particular shop at Rajouri Garden at that time and was deputed for unloading the stones at Gurgaon. He further stated that accused Abhas was apprehended by the police on the same night.
18. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
19. The allegations against both the accused persons in the present case are that both the accused persons restrained the complainant Sindo Devi and gave beating to her and also caused greivous hurt in her left hand finger and also gave beatings to Radhey Shyam (husband of the complainant) and Sindo Devi and criminally intitmidated both of them.
FIR NO: 360/99 State vs Abhash etc 6 /9 7
20. PW2 Sindo Devi categorically stated in her examination that on 13.08.99 at abotu 8:30 PM she returned to her house from the factory and sent her husband for bringing the milk and one accused Abhash came to her house and stopped her way and pulled her hair and thereafter other accused Abhash came and gave beating to her and caught hold of her left finger and turned it forcibly due to which it broke down . She further stated that both of them threatened that in case they demanded money for vacating the jhuggi, they will kill PW2 Sindo Devi as well as her husband. She further stated that her husband also reached there and both the accused persons gave beatings to her husband also. Accused persons were correctly identified by PW2 Sindo Devi. Pw3 Radhey Shyam, husband of PW2 Sindo Devi also gave identical statement and correctly identified the accused persons. Both the witnesses are cross examined by the ld. defence counsel however the defence counsel failed to shake the testimony of any one of them. He has not putforth any motive behind their deposition against the accused persons. Both the witnesses have given a consistent version against the accused persons. Though there is no other public witness other than the complainant and her husband but there is no reason to discredit their testimony as nothing material could come out from the cross examination of the witnesses conducted by the defence counsel.
21. Both the witnesses have categorically stated that both the accused persons have given beatings to them. The fact of receiving greivous injury by the complainant PW2 Sindo Devi has been proved by Pw5 Dr. Rakesh Kumar wherein he stated that FIR NO: 360/99 State vs Abhash etc 7 /9 8 he found fracture of middle phalanx of 4th digit of left hand of patient Sindo Devi. Pw5 Dr. Rakesh was not cross examined by the ld. defence counsel for the accused and therefore his testimony remain unrebutted and uncontroverted. The MLC of the complainant Sindo Devi was proved by PW6 record clerk.
22. Other proceedings regarding arrest of the accused person Ahbas has been proved by HC Umed Singh who accompanied the IO in the investigation. The IO of the present case SI N.C.Thakur has expired during trial and could not be examined in the present case. In my opinion, nonexamination of IO has not caused prejudice to the accused persons. The defence counsel has failed to show that due to nonexamination of IO, accused persons have been adversely affected. Reliance in this regard is p lace on "Ram Gulam Chaudhary vs State of Bihar 2001 (8) SCC 311".
23. The FIR and the DD entry regarding the quarrel dated 13.08.99 has been proved by HC Vir Singh.
24. The defence brought two witnesses one DW1, the wife of the accused Prabhas who stated that on 13.08.99 she gave birth to a female baby and on 14.08.99 she was discharged from the hospital and accused Prabhas was with her from 12.08.99 to 14.08.99 and did not go anywhere else but did not put forth anything in this regard. Further there is no complaint on record at that point of time which could show that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case. Even the birth certificate of the child has not been put on record.
FIR NO: 360/99 State vs Abhash etc 8 /9 9
25. Another witness DW2 Vijay Kumar stated that on 13.08.99 accused Abhash was with him and came back to Delhi at about 1010:30 PM. It is worth while to note that during the cross examination of PW1 and Pw3 no suggestion has been given to the witness by the ld. defence counsel regarding the defence put forth by him in the defence evidence. Nothing was put to the witness that the accused Prabhas was in the hospital due to the delivery of his wife on the date of incident nor any suggestion was put forth regarding the presence of the accused Abhas at Gurgaon on the date of incident as stated by DW2 Vinay Kumar. The absence of the cross examination to this effect makes it apparent that the defence produced by the accused persons is an after thought and has been concocted. At the risk of repetition, it is again stated that both the witnesses Pw2 and Pw3 have clearly deposed against the accused persons and have established that the accused persons wrongfully restrained PW2 and gave beatings to both the husband and wife and also criminally intimidated them. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimony specifically when they have been put to cross examinatin and their veracity has already been tested. Hence, the guilt of the accused persons u/s 341/325/506(ii) IPC stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Both the accused persons namely Abhas and Prabhas are convicted for the offence u/s 341/325/506(ii) IPC. Let they be heard on point of sentence.
Announced in the open (Vandana Jain)
court on 22.11.2011 MM08/West/Delhi
FIR NO: 360/99 State vs Abhash etc 9 /9
10
FIR No: 360/99
PS: Kirti Nagar
22.11.2011
Present: Ld. APP for the state
Both the accused persons are present
Vide separate judgment, both the accused persons are convicted for the offence 341/325/506(ii) IPC. Let they both be heard on point of sentence on 25.11.2011.
Vandana Jain
MM-08/West/Delhi
22.11.2011
FIR NO: 360/99 State vs Abhash etc 10 /9