Delhi District Court
State vs . : Meena Etc. on 24 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC - 01) (SOUTH), SAKET,
NEW DELHI
SC No. : 659/2017
FIR No. : 93/2017
PS : Hauz Khas
State Vs. : Meena etc.
JUDGMENT
(a) Name of complainant : Smt.Gayatri
(b) Name, parentage & : (1) Meena
address of accused(s) W/o Late Sh. Satpal
R/o H.No. F-130/6, Gautam Nagar,
New Delhi
(2) Raj Chauhan @ Raje
S/o Sh.Pramod Chauhan
R/o H.No. F-130/6, Gautam Nagar,
New Delhi
(c) Offence complained off : 308/325/341/451/506/34 IPC
(d) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(e) Final order : Convicted
(f) Date of such order : 24.08.2023
Date of Institution : 27.10.2017
Final arguments heard : 05.07.2023
Date of Judgment : 24.08.2023
BRIEF FACTS :
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.03.2017 at about 2.00 p.m. at H.No.122B/1C, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi, accused Meena along with co-
FIR No.93/2017PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.1 of 19 accused Raj Chauhan @ Raje and CCL 'K' (name withheld being Juvenile) in furtherance of their common intention, forcibly entered in the shop of the complainant and wrongfully restrained complainant Gayatri & her husband namely Suresh and also beat them and slapped their children i.e. Sumaiya and Sahil. It is also alleged that accused Meena hit a brick on the head of complainant Gayatri while accused Raj Chauhan @ Raje caused injury on the head and over the left eye of Suresh. As per the case of the prosecution accused persons also threatened the complainant and her husband. Consequently, charge-sheet for the offence U/s 308/325/341/451/506/34 IPC was filed against accused Meena and Raj Chauhan @ Raje and the proceedings qua CCL 'K' was filed before the JJB-II separately.
After the compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, matter was committed to the Court of Sessions by Ld. MM vide order dated 05.12.2017.
Charge:-
2. On the basis of material placed on record by the prosecution, charge was framed against accused Meena and Raj Chauhan @ Raje, for the offences punishable U/s 451/341/323/308/325/506/34 IPC vide order dated 23.10.2018 passed by Ld. Predecessor, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence :-
3. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution had examined 12 witnesses in the prosecution evidence i.e. PW1 Smt. Gayatri (complainant), PW2 Sh. Suresh (injured), PW5 Master Sahil (victim), PW7 Ms.Saumya Kumar (victim), PW8 Dr.Siva (to prove the MLC of complainant Gayatri), PW9 Kartar Singh (to prove the MLC of complainant Gayatri), PW11 Dr.Sanket Gautam (to prove the MLC of injured Suresh), PW12 Dr.Bindi Garg FIR No.93/2017 PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.2 of 19 (to prove the MLC of injured Suresh) and police witnesses i.e. PW3 SI Chhagan Lal, PW4 HC Madan Pal, PW6 ASI V. Rajeev and PW10 ASI Mahavir Singh.
Summary of prosecution evidence :-
4. In the prosecution evidence, Complainant Gayatri was examined as PW1. PW1 Smt.Gayatri deposed that on 13.03.2017 at about 2.00 p.m. on the day of 'Holi' she was present with her husband and children at her tea stall at the ground floor of her house, which was under construction. She deposed that on that day at about 2.00 p.m., accused Raje was sitting on the stairs of his shop at the ground floor of his house in the 'gali' (in front of her tea stall) and he was heavily drunk at that time. She further deposed that she saw accused Raje going upstairs to the balcony where accused Meena whispered something to him. She further testified that after that accused Raje got enraged and came running and entered into her tea stall forcibly. She further stated that accused Raje slapped her children Sahil and Saumaya and pulled her husband with his collar and forcibly took him outside the shop. As per her testimony, when she tried to save her husband, other family members of the accused also came downstairs and caught hold of her. She further testified that accused Meena picked up a brick and hit the same on her head, consequently PW1 Gayatri got injured and started bleeding from her head. As per her testimony, her husband was also beaten up by accused Raje and Kuldeep (son of the accused Meena) with fists and blows. Thereafter, accused Meena also attacked her husband with an earthen pot (gamla) on his head. She further deposed that during the said quarrel, accused persons had also threatened her that in case she took any action against them, they would kill her.FIR No.93/2017
PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.3 of 19
5. In her cross-examination, PW1 Gayatri deposed that she is a housewife and she used to supply tiffin. She further deposed that at the time of incident, her husband was running the tea stall. She further deposed that she used to sit daily at the tea stall, while her children used to sit there only on holidays. As per her testimony, prior to the said incident as well, i.e. on 03.03.2017 accused persons had forcibly entered into her house, however, only heated altercations had taken place between them and no such quarrel had taken place. She further stated that after about half an hour of the incident, a call was made to the police and police reached at the spot within 15 minutes. She admitted the suggestion that she was a tenant in the house of accused in the year 2016 and she remained there for 10 months. She denied the suggestion that accused never extended any threats to her or her family members. She further denied the suggestion that on the date of incident, accused had come to her shop for raising demand for dues of rent. She, voluntarily, stated that there were no dues of rent as she had already cleared all the dues, when she had left the rented house of accused. She further denied the suggestion that when accused Raje came to her shop for asking about the dues of rent, her husband pushed accused Raje and started abusing him. She further denied the suggestion that during the quarrel, she and her family members had started pelting stones and bricks on the accused and mistakenly a brick which was pelted by her children had hit her as well as her husband on their head.
6. PW2 Suresh Kumar deposed that the on the day of 'Holi' festival, in the month of March 2017, he was present at his tea stall, which was being run from his (under construction) house. He further deposed that on that day at about 1:45 PM, when he was present at his shop, accused Raje, who was under the influence of liquor, entered in his shop where his children Saumaya and Sahil FIR No.93/2017 PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.4 of 19 and his wife were also present. He further deposed that accused Raje was abusing him and when he tried to push the accused from his shop, accused Raje started slapping his children. He further testified that other family members of accused Raje also came at his tea stall. He also testified that when his wife tried to save his children, accused Meena hit a brick on the head of his wife. As per his testimony, accused Raje and son of accused Meena caught hold of him, pushed him on the ground and hit him with an earthen pot on his head from behind, due to which he suffered injuries on his head and leg. He further deposed that PCR came at the spot and took him and his wife to the hospital. As per his testimony, his wife had called at 100 number.
7. In his cross-examination, PW2 Suresh Kumar deposed that he had opened his tea stall at about 10:00 AM on the day of incident, i.e. on Holi festival. He denied the suggestion that a quarrel had taken place between him and accused persons due to dues of rent. He further denied the suggestion that accused Raje informed him about the illicit relations of his wife that is why quarrel had taken place. He further deposed that he could not tell the exact time, when police had reached at the spot, however, at about 2:30 PM his wife was removed to hospital by the police. He, however, admitted the suggestion given by ld.Defence counsel that at the time of the incident, his children were present at his shop and construction of his house was going on at that time. He denied the suggestion that his children had started pelting stones on the public persons and accused persons and his wife had got injured by the stones thrown by his children.
8. PW5 Sahil (son of complainant) deposed that on 13.03.2017, it was 'Holi' and he was present at the tea shop of his father and that some construction work FIR No.93/2017 PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.5 of 19 was going on at their house. As per his testimony, his mother/PW1 Smt. Gayatri, his father/PW2 Sh.Suresh Kumar and his younger sister/PW7 Somya Kumar were also present there. He further testified that at about 2.00 p.m., accused Raje was sitting on stairs in front of their shop and he came to their shop, in a drunken condition and accused Raje purchased 'pakoras' from his father and then he went back to first floor of his house which was opposite to their house. He further deposed that from their house/shop, the house of accused Raje was easily visible and he saw that accused Meena, whispered something in his ear, after which accused Raje came to their shop in anger and he abused them in a filthy language. He further deposed that accused Raje entered into their shop and was going towards his father. As per his testimony, when he tried to intercept him, accused Raj Chauhan @ Raje slapped him twice and also slapped his sister. He further stated that accused Raje dragged him and his father outside the shop, where the bike and scooters used to be parked and he started beating them. He further stated that CCL 'K', son of accused Meena alongwith accused Meena and her entire family came there. As per his testimony, accused Raje hit his father on his leg with a brick, while accused Meena hit on the head of his mother with two bricks one by one, due to which clothes of his mother got smeared with blood. He further stated that PCR van reached at the spot as they had already informed at 100 number when accused Raje had started abusing them. He also deposed that accused Meena lifted one Gamla (flower pot) and hit the same on the head of his father and accused Meena went to her house in between and she herself inflicted injuries over her person with blade to create false evidence against them that those injuries were caused to her by them. He further testified that the PCR police officials shifted his mother Smt.Gayatri to hospital and he alongwith his father in their car went to Safdarjang hospital.
FIR No.93/2017PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.6 of 19
9. In his cross-examination, PW5 Sahil deposed that the tea shop is a part of their house as the same is on the ground floor of the house. He further deposed that and they had been living at their said house for about 4-5 days prior to the date of incident and prior to that they were living as tenants on the third floor of the house of accused for about one year. He further deposed that on the same day, nothing had happened in the morning except that accused was abusing them in their house. He denied the suggestion that at the time of incident, his father was in drunken condition and was abusing the accused persons. He further deposed that the PCR was called by his father. He further testified that his mother had sustained injuries on her head and neither he nor her sister received any injuries. He further deposed that from the hospital they went to Vasant Kunj to the house of his 'bua'. He further stated that police did not prepare any site plan in his presence. He further deposed that the Gamla was of medium size and the same weighed about 5-6 Kgs. He denied the suggestion that he threw bricks over the accused persons and due to this reason, and that due to the same, his mother and father also sustained injuries. He denied the suggestion that tension was continuously going on between the accused persons and his family as some rent was outstanding towards her father. He further denied the suggestion that there was no gamla at the spot and that no gamla was hit by accused Meena on the head of his father. He further testified that no complaint had been lodged by him or his family against passing of comments and harassing them till date by the accused persons.
10. PW7 Soumya Kumar (minor aged about 12 years) was questioned by Ld.Predecessor to ascertain that she understood the meaning of oath and was also able to understand the questions being put to her and was able to give FIR No.93/2017 PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.7 of 19 reasonable answers to them. After recording her satisfaction, Ld. Predecessor proceeded to record the testimony of the child witness on oath.
11. In her examination-in-chief, PW7 Saumya deposed that on 13.03.2017, she was present at the snack shop of her father at Gautam Nagar, New Delhi and on that day at around 02:00 pm, her father was frying pakodas. She further deposed that at that time, accused Raje came in the shop and caught hold of the collar of her father and tried to pull him out of the shop. She further testified that her brother Sahil tried to save his father, however, he was pushed back by accused Raje. She further deposed that her mother Smt. Gayatri, who was also present in the shop, called the police by dialing 100 number. She further stated that in the meantime, one lady i.e. accused Meena also came in the shop and she gave a blow with a brick on the head of her mother and she also hit the brick on the foot of his father. As per her testimony, PCR van had also arrived, however, accused Raje and accused Meena continued to attack her parents even in their presence. She further deposed that the police officials took her and her mother to hospital where her mother was medically examined and treated.
12. In her cross-examination, PW7 Soumya deposed that at the time of incident, there were around 8-10 public persons present in the shop of his father as a customers. She further stated that the PCR call was made by her father when accused Raje was pulling his father from his collar. She further testified that accused Meena had hit the brick on the head of her mother, after arrival of PCR officials. She denied the suggestion that she was not present at the spot at the time of incident.
FIR No.93/2017PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.8 of 19
13. PW10 ASI Mahavir Singh deposed that on 13.03.2017 at about 2-2.15 p.m. on receipt of DD No.17A, he alongwith PW-4 HC Madan went to the spot at H.No.122B, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi where they came to know that some quarrel had taken place but neither the injured nor the complainant were found there. He further deposed that in the meantime, two more DDs i.e. DD NO.24B and 26B were received from AIIMS Trauma Centre and Safdarjung Hospital regarding admission of injured persons. He further deposed that he alongwith PW4 HC Madan went to AIIMS Trauma Centre where injured i.e. PW1 Gayatri was found admitted, however, her MLC was not duly completed. Thereafter, they went to Safdarjung Hospital where injured i.e. PW2 Suresh was found admitted. He further testified that neither PW1 Gayatri nor PW2 Suresh were found in their respective hospitals and the call was kept pending. He further deposed that on 14.03.2017, he alongwith PW4 HC Madan went to AIIMS Trauma Centre but the MLC of PW1 Ms.Gayatri was still incomplete and thereafter, they went to Safdarjung Hospital and collected the MLC of PW2 Suresh. He further deposed that he alongwith PW4 HC Madan went to the spot of occurrence, where they came to know that injured persons had gone to the police station. Consequently, they went to PS and found PW1 Gayatri and PW2 Suresh were present there and he recorded the statement of Gayatri vide Ex.PW1/A and got the present FIR registered. Thereafter, they went to the spot and he prepared the site plan at the instance of injured Suresh vide Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that accused Meena and Raj Chauhan @ Raje were arrested vide ExPW4/B and Ex.PW4/A from their house, at the instance of injured persons. As per his testimony, they tried to recover the piece of brick which was used as weapon of offence but the same could not be recovered.
FIR No.93/2017PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.9 of 19
14. In his cross-examination, PW10 ASI Mahavir Singh deposed that he reached at the spot within 15-20 minutes of receipt of DD No.17A and he made inquries from the public persons present near the spot and came to know that some quarrel had taken place and the injured had been shifted to hospital by PCR. He further deposed that no eye witness was present. He further stated that on the next day, when the injured persons met him in the PS, they were fit for statement. He denied the suggestion that he had not conduced fair investigation in the present case and that accused persons had been falsely implicated in the present matter.
15. The present FIR was placed on record as Ex.PW3/A, endorsement on the ruqua was placed on record as Ex.PW3/B, DD No.24B was placed on record vide Mark X-1, DD No.26 B was placed on record vide Mark X-2, DD No.6A was placed on record vide Ex.PW6/A, MLC of injured Gayatri dated 13.03.2017 was placed on record vide Ex.PW8/A, MLC of injured Suresh dated 13.03.2017 was placed on record vide Ex.PW11/A.
16. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C vide order dated 27.02.2023 whereby the accused persons chose to lead defence evidence.
Defence Evidence :
17. In defence evidence, accused persons examined only one witness i.e. DW1 Khushboo I.ke. Sister of accused Raj Chauhan.
18. DW1 Khushboo deposed that in year 2016-17, house of complainant i.e. Smt.Gayatri was under construction and she was residing as a tenant on 3 rd FIR No.93/2017 PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.10 of 19 floor during the said construction. She further deposed that when they asked her to pay rent, she told that she did not have money to pay the rent and that she would vacate the premises. She further deposed that on 13.03.2017, it was on the occasion of Holi, her mother was making Pakodas at her home, when suddenly she heard loud voice and saw that her brother i.e. accused Raj Chauhan was being beaten up by the husband of Smt. Gayatri, who was heavily drunk at that time. She further deposed that when she alongwith her mother tried to save her brother, complainant hit her mother with Chamcha. She further deposed that when quarrel had stopped, her brother and her mother went back to the house. She further deposed that after half an hour, she again heard some loud voice and saw that Smt. Gayatri was running away from the house and there was some bleeding on her head. As per her testimony, at that time they all were sitting on the roof top. She further stated that PW1 Gayatri had filed a complaint at the PS and had falsely implicated her brother and mother, as she did not want to pay the rent.
19. In her cross-examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP, DW1 Khushboo deposed that she did not remember the period for which PW1 Smt.Gayatri had stayed as a tenant in their house. She further stated that the rent was decided as Rs.15,000/- per month but she did not give the rent properly. She further deposed that the complainant used to give Rs.3,000/- or Rs.2,000/- or Rs.5,000/- towards part payment of rent. She denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place. She also denied the suggestion that on 13.03.2017 at about 2.00 p.m. at H.No.12-B/1C, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi accused persons i.e. Raj Chauhan @ Raje and Meena alongwith CCL 'K' had forcibly entered in the shop of complainant/PW1 Smt.Gayatri situated at H.No.122B/1C, Gautam Nagar and had restrained her and her husband i.e. FIR No.93/2017 PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.11 of 19 PW2 Suresh and had also given beating to them. She also denied the suggestion that on the said date, time and place accused Meena had hit on the head of complainant/PW1 Gyatri with a brick and accused Raj Chauhan @ Raje had caused injury on the head and over the left eye of PW2 Suresh. She further denied the suggestion that on the said date, time and place, accused Raj Chauhan @ Raje and Meena had threatened the complainant/PW1 Gayatri and her husband i.e. PW2 Suresh and had also caused grievous injuries to PW2 Suresh. She further denied the suggestion that she was not present at the time of alleged incident and that is why police had not recorded her statement.
Appreciation of Evidence and Findings :
20. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.03.2017 at about 2.00 p.m., accused persons Meena and Raj Chauhan @ Raje wrongfully restrained complainant/PW1 Gayatri and her husband PW2 Suresh. As per the case of the prosecution, accused Meena also hit PW2 Gayatri with a brick on her head;
while accused Raj Chauhan @ Raje also caused injury on the head of PW2 Suresh.
21. In order to prove the same, the prosecution had examined PW1 Gayatri. In her examination-in-chief she had deposed that on 13.03.2017, she was present at her tea stall alongwith her husband and children, on the ground floor of H.No.122-B/1C quarter, Gautam Nagar. She testified that she saw that at about 2.00 p.m, accused Raje was sitting on the stairs of his shop on the ground floor of his house in front of her tea stall and was heavily drunk. She further testified that he went upstairs to the balcony of the first floor of his house where her aunt i.e. accused Meena was present and she whispered something in FIR No.93/2017 PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.12 of 19 the ear of accused Raje, who got enraged and came down and forcibly entered their tea stall. She also testified that accused Raje slapped her children and held her husband with the collar of his shirt and took him outside the shop. As per her testimony, when she tried to save her husband both the accused and their family members also came down stairs and they also caught hold of PW1 Gayatri. As per the testimony of PW1 Gayatri, accused Meena picked up a brick and hit her twice on her head, while accused Raje and CCL K (i.e. son of accused Meena) gave beatings to her husband with fists and blows. She also testified that accused Meena also attacked her husband with an earthen pot (Gamla).
22. The said testimony of PW1 Gayatri is also supported by her complaint given to the police on 14.03.2017 i.e. Ex. PW1/A. As per the endorsement on the said complaint, the same was given to the police at about 4.00 p.m. i.e. on the next day of the incident. The said testimony of PW1 Gayatri is also corroborated by the testimony of her husband i.e. PW2 Suresh whereby he had also deposed that accused Meena had hit his wife i.e. PW1 Gayatri with a brick on her head. However, he deposed that accused Raje and son of accused Meena (i.e. CCL 'K') had caught hold of him and pushed him on the ground and had hit him with an earthen pot (Gamla) on his head from behind.
23. Ld. counsel for accused had tried to assail the testimony of PW1 Gayatri on the ground that there were material contradictions in the testimonies of the aforesaid material witnesses regarding the person who had made the call to the PCR . In fact, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had argued that as per the testimony of PW1 Gayatri, she had called the police FIR No.93/2017 PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.13 of 19 while as per the testimony of PW2 Suresh, initially he had deposed that the PCR was called by his friend.
24. Be that as it may, perusal of the testimony of PW2 Suresh shows that subsequently, in response to a leading question asked by Ld.Addl. PP, he had deposed that his wife had called at 100 number. The fact that the testimony of PW2 Suresh was recorded after about more than one and half year of the incident, cannot be lost sight of and such minor contradictions are bound to occur. Thus, there is no merit in the said contentions raised by the Ld.Counsel for accused.
25. Ld.Counsel for accused had further argued that as per the testimony of PW1 Gayatri, PCR had arrived in about 15 minutes, while as per the testimony of PW2 Suresh, he could not tell the exact time when police had reached at the spot. Be that as it may, the fact that the injured persons i.e. PW1 Gayatri & PW2 Suresh were taken to AIIMS Hospital and Safdarjung Hospital (respectively) by PCR Van had not been denied by the accused persons and no such suggestion had been given to any of the said witness by ld.Counsel for the accused persons to that effect. Thus, time within which PCR had arrived after the incident is not material and does not prove or disprove the fact in issue i.e. whether the accused persons had caused the said injuries to the injured persons ?
26. Further, Ld counsel for accused persons had argued that it is highly improbable that a tea stall would be open on the occasion of 'Holi'. However, there is no merit in the said contention raised by Ld defence counsel as well. It is not improbable for a shop to open on a festival. Moreover, no such suggestion had FIR No.93/2017 PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.14 of 19 been given by Ld. counsel for accused persons to any of the material witnesses during their testimony and thus, the said fact had remained untraversed by the accused persons and is deemed to have been admitted.
27. Having said that, PW-1 Gayatri had categorically testified that at the time of the incident, on the instigation of accused Meena accused Raje had forcibly entered into their tea stall and had pulled the collar of her husband. As per her testimony, accused Meena had also hit her with a brick on her head twice, while her husband PW-2 Suresh was beaten up accused Raje and CCL K with fists and blows.
28. Be that as it may, perusal of the complaint given by PW-1 Gayatri to the police on 14.03.2017 i.e. Ex. PW1/A shows that in the said complaint, although the abovementioned facts had been mentioned therein, however, it had not been mentioned that accused Meena had also hit the husband of PW-1 Gayatri i.e. PW-2 Suresh with an earthen pot (Gamla) on his head. Perusal of the said complaint shows that the same mentions only about beating being given by accused Raje and CCL 'K' to PW-2 Suresh. Nowhere, the said complaints mentions that accused Meena had attacked PW-2 Suresh with an earthen pot (Gamla).
29. However, the other victim i.e. PW-2 Suresh Kumar had himself mentioned in his testimony that accused Raje and CCL K had caught hold of him and had hit him and had pushed him on the ground and had hit him with an earthen pot on his head, from behind and that he had also sustained injuries on his leg. The said testimony of PW-2 Suresh is duly corroborated by his MLC dated 13.03.2017 prepared at 05:57 PM (placed on record as Ex. PW11/A) whereby FIR No.93/2017 PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.15 of 19 the injuries are mentioned as follows : "tenderness, right toe, lacerated injury over head, lacerated injury over left eye, tenderness left leg" and the nature of injury had been opined as "grievous" by the examining doctor.
30. Thus, even though the complaint of PW-1 Gayatri does not mention about any injury being inflicted upon PW-2 Suresh with an earthen pot (Gamla), however, the said MLC proves the factum of injury having being caused on the head and leg of PW-2 Suresh within proximate time of the incident.
31. Furthermore, it appears that the said quarrel took place on the spur of the moment and in the heat of the moment, the victim i.e. PW-2 Suresh could not gather as to who had caused injury to him, as he was being attacked by accused Raje and CCL K. However, the same does not render his testimony as unreliable as it is duly supported by his MLC as aforementioned.
32. Moreover, the said testimonies of PW-1 Gayatri and PW-2 Suresh are also corroborated by the testimonies of their children i.e. PW-7 Soumya Kumar and PW-5 Sahil, who had also deposed that their mother i.e. PW-1 Gayatri was attacked by accused Meena with a brick on her head while, accused Raje had attacked their father i.e. PW-2 Suresh on his leg and as per the testimony of PW-5 Sahil, accused Meena had also attacked their father with an earthen pot (Gamla).
33. The testimony of PW-1 Gayatri is also duly corroborated by her MLC dated 13.03.2017 prepared at 02:23 PM vide Ex. PW8/A, whereby the injuries suffered by her are mentioned as follows : " laceration over scalp, 3x1 cm; laceration over scalp 3x2 cm; laceration over scalp 1x1 cm; abrasion over upper lip 1x1 cm" and the nature of injuries sustained by her was opined to be FIR No.93/2017 PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.16 of 19 "simple" in nature. The said MLC duly corroborates the testimony of PW-1 Gayatri that she was attacked by accused Meena with a brick on her head.
34. As per the testimony of PW-1 Gayatri, the accused persons had also extended threats to kill them. As already stated, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the said material witness.
35. Per contra, accused persons had led the testimony of their sister of accused Raje i.e. DW-1 Khushboo, who had testified that the day of the incident, she saw that her brother i.e. accused Raj Chauhan was beaten up by husband of PW-1 Gayatri, who was heavily drunk and that when her mother i.e. accused Meena ran to save her brother, PW-1 Gayatri also hit her with a Chamcha. The said testimony of said witness, however, is not duly corroborated by any MLC of the accused persons and consequently, the said testimony does not appear to be reliable to that extent, as DW-1 Khushboo appears to be an interested witness being the sister of accused Raje.
36. Thus, the fact that accused persons had caused the aforesaid injuries is duly proved by the aforementioned testimonies and medical evidence. The moot question, that is now to be answered is whether the said injuries were caused by accused Meena and accused Raje with the intention to cause death of the victims within the ambit of section 308 IPC ?
37. In Narinder Kaur Oberoi and Another vs. State of Delhi, Crl Rev. P. 289/2014 & Crl. M.A. No. 7916/2014 decided on March 4, 2015, it had been held that :
FIR No.93/2017PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.17 of 19 "6. .... There was no previous enmity between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 and there was no pre-mediation. It was a sudden scuffle between the parties. No repeated blows on vital body parts were inflicted.
7. Considering all the above referred circumstances, it can safely be inferred that the petitioners at no stage had intention or knowledge to commit offence under section 308 IPC. In the clash that occurred without any pre-planning, injuries were inflicted for which the petitioners can be prosecuted for voluntarily causing hurt to the victims. Apparently, there was no cogent material on record before the trial court to charge the petitioner under section 308 IPC."
38. Thus, in view of the said judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court Delhi, the answer to the above question appears to be in the negative, as perusal of the testimonies of PW-1 Gayatri shows that admittedly she was the tenant in the house of the accused in the year 2016 and it is the defence of the accused persons that there was a dispute regarding non payment of rent by the victim PW-1 Gayatri. The said defence had been raised by the accused persons by leading the evidence of sister of accused Raje i.e. DW-1 Khushboo, who had deposed that PW-1 Gayatri had not been paying the due rent and used to make part payment of rent of Rs. 15,000/-, in small installments of Rs. 3000/- or 2000/-. Thus, the manner in which the said incident took place i.e. on the instigation of accused Meena at the spot, without any pre-meditation on the part of the accused persons and on the issue of non payment of due rent, gives an insight into the intention of the accused persons. Thus, from the said facts, it does not appear that the purpose of the assault by the accused persons was to commit homicide of the victims, but it appears that the object of the said assault was vindication on account of non payment of rent by the victims.
39. Therefore, the offence u/s 308 IPC is not made out against the accused persons.
Be that as it may, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, tress passed into the FIR No.93/2017 PS Hauz Khas State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.18 of 19 tea stall of PW-1 Gayatri, and they had also wrongfully restrained the husband of the complainant i.e. PW-2 Suresh and had inflicted 'simple' injuries on PW- 1 Gayatri and they had also inflicted 'grievous' injuries within the meaning of section 320 IPC to PW-2 Suresh, (who had also suffered a fracture of his toe, as per the OPD card dated 14.03.2017 placed on record alongwith his MLC i.e. Ex. PW11/A).
40. Thus, the prosecution has proved it's case against the accused persons for the offence u/s 451/341/323/325/506/34 IPC. The accused persons are hereby convicted for the said offences.
41. Copy of judgment be given to the convicts free of costs.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT Digitally signed by
MANISHA
on 24.08.2023 KHURANA
MANISHA KHURANA
KAKKAR
Date: 2023.08.26 14:16:51
KAKKAR +0530
(MANISHA KHURANA KAKKAR)
ASJ (FTC) - 01, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET: NEW DELHI/24.08.2023
FIR No.93/2017
PS Hauz Khas
State Vs. Meena etc. Page No.19 of 19