Delhi District Court
State vs . Pintu Paswan on 19 February, 2015
FIR NO. 102/2011: PS: Bara Hindu Rao ; U/s 324/509/34 IPC DOD: 19.02.2015 IN THE COURT OF SH. POORAN CHAND : CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI FIR No.:102/2011 PS: Bara Hindu Rao U/s : 324/509/34 IPC State Vs. Pintu Paswan Unique ID No.: 02401R0590622011 J U D G M E N T:
______________________________________________________________
(a) S.No. of the case : 201/B/2
(b) Name of complainant : Sh. Pradeep Mohar S/o Sh. Mahesh Mohar R/o T57, Tokriwalan, Azad Market, Delhi06.
(c) Date of commission of offence : 24.11.2011
(d) Name of the accused : Pintu Paswan
S/o Sh. Rajender Paswan
R/o Jhuggi Mithai Pul, Sadar
Bazar, Delhi.
Permanent Address: Village
Bhrat Khand, Police Station
Parvata, District Khagria, Bihar.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 324/509/34 IPC
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 19.02.2015
(h) Final Order : Convicted
State V/s Pintu Paswan (Convicted) Page 1 of 13
FIR NO. 102/2011: PS: Bara Hindu Rao ; U/s 324/509/34 IPC DOD: 19.02.2015
(i) Date of such order : 19.02.2015
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 24.11.2011 at about 3.35 am, Pull Mithai behind Avantika Murti, Tokriwalan Azad Market, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Bara Hindu Rao, accused Pintu Paswan alongwith coaccused Ram and Nanua ( since absconding) voluntarily gave blow of sharp edged to complainant namely Sh. Pradeep Mohar R/o T57, Tokriwalan, Azad Market, Delhi and caused simple injuries to him. Further, accused alongwith said coaccused utters abusive words with intention to insult the modesty of women Payal and Neha. The present FIR u/s 324/509/34 IPC was registered on the complaint of Pradeep Mohar. Police force came into motion. Accused Pintu Paswan was arrested by the police. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was completed and challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C. for having committed offence u/s 324/509/34 IPC was prepared and filed in the Court for judicial verdict.
2. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence u/s 324/509/34 IPC was taken and compliance of section 207/208 Cr.P.C was made. After hearing arguments on charge vide order dated 01.02.2012, charge for offences U/s 324/509/34 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State V/s Pintu Paswan (Convicted) Page 2 of 13 FIR NO. 102/2011: PS: Bara Hindu Rao ; U/s 324/509/34 IPC DOD: 19.02.2015
3. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, whereafter the PE in the matter was closed. Thereafter, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defense.
Evidence Held:
4. Total eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
5. PW1 HC Shyam Dutt deposed that on 25.11.2011 his duty hours were 5.00 pm to 1.00 am. On that day, at about 5.35 pm, he received rukka from IO ASI Nawazish Raza in the police station itself. On the basis of said rukka, he registered the FIR No. 102/2011 which is Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, he handed over the same rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Mahender for ASI Nawazish Raza for further investigation.
6. PW2 Sh. Pardeep is the complainant/injured who deposed that he is residing in Delhi on rented accommodation from last two years. He is Halwai by profession. Some other persons namely Dharmender and two girls namely Payal and Neha also work with him. On 24.11.2011, they all four alongwith other Halwai had gone to prepare food in a marriage at Kanjhawala from Tikriwalan. On the above date, at about 3.00 am, he alongwith his other three State V/s Pintu Paswan (Convicted) Page 3 of 13 FIR NO. 102/2011: PS: Bara Hindu Rao ; U/s 324/509/34 IPC DOD: 19.02.2015 associates reached at Tikriwalan in Tata 407. The driver of Tata 407 dropped them at Tikriwalan and left from there. All four of them were sitting at Avantika by Chowk, Azad Market and waiting for TSR. In the meantime, three boys came there to whom he usually saw at Pul Mithai Wala. All the three boys came to them and started molesting Payal and Neha. He and Dharmender resisted for the same but on that all those three boys started abusing them. Out of those three boys, accused was known to him prior to the incident. Accused Pintu took out some sharp edged weapon from his pocket and attacked with it on the right side of his abdomen. He also attacked on his left hand. In the above quarrel, his cash of Rs. 1500/ belonging to him also fell down. Accused alongwith his two other associates ran away from the spot. His brother namely Rajesh came at the spot and took him to the hospital. His MLC was conducted there. He could not gave his complaint on the same day as he was injured. On the next day i.e. 25.11.2011, he gave his complaint Ex. PW2/A. IO prepared the site plan at his instance which is Ex. PW2/B. Accused was arrested at his instance vide memo Ex. PW2/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/D. This witness was cross examined by accused at length wherein injured has categorically admitted that there was no street light at the spot. He had admitted that accused alongwith his associates had touched the girls. He had further admitted that accused alongwith his associates molested the girls at the same time. He had further admitted that the accused had attacked on him with the knife. He identified the accused Pintu as the same person who State V/s Pintu Paswan (Convicted) Page 4 of 13 FIR NO. 102/2011: PS: Bara Hindu Rao ; U/s 324/509/34 IPC DOD: 19.02.2015 attacked on him on 24.11.2011. He had also admitted that he was called by the girls Payal and Neha and he became unconscious after the incident. He had further admitted that accused Pintu was not known to him prior to the incident.
7. PW3 Dharmender has deposed that he alongwith Pradeep, Ashok, Pawan, Neha and Payal were coming after doing work in a marriage in a Tata
407. Tata 407 had left them in Tokriwala Mohalla. He alongwith Pradeep accompanied Neha and Payal to Mithai Pul for hiring auto. Three boys came there and asked him "what was going there". He told them that they were hiring auto for the two girls. They started abusing him. They also teased/chera chari the said girls. He tried to intervene but they had beaten him. The two boys caught hold Pradeep and one boy attacked on him with pointed out thing. Thereafter he went to call his brother Rajesh. Accused persons ran away from the spot. Rajesh made a call at 100 number. Accused had attacked Pradeep with the pointed out thing and he sustained injuries on his stomach.
This witness was cross examined by accused wherein he had admitted that there was no street light and they all were waiting in darkness. He had further admitted that the said three persons were not known to him before the incident. He further admitted that accused is the same person who was beating him. He further admitted that all the three accused started misbehaving with them when they opposed. He further admitted that when Pradeep became unconscious he went to call his brother Rajesh. He further State V/s Pintu Paswan (Convicted) Page 5 of 13 FIR NO. 102/2011: PS: Bara Hindu Rao ; U/s 324/509/34 IPC DOD: 19.02.2015 admitted that accused ran away from the spot. He had further admitted that Rajesh made a call at 100 number and thereafter they were taken to the hospital.
8. PW4 Ct. Mahender Singh has deposed that on 25.11.2011 he was posted at Police Station Bara Hindu Rao. On that day, he was present in the Police Station when Duty Officer HC Shyam Dutt handed over to him copy of present FIR alongwith original rukka for the purpose of handing over the same to IO ASI Nawazish Raza, reported to be in the area at the spot. He accordingly, took the said documents to the spot situated at Pul Mithai, behind the statue of Avantika Bai. IO ASI Nawazish Raza was present there alongwith HC Shyam Singh and complainant Sh. Pradeep. He gave the said documents to the IO for investigation. They started for searching for accused. When they reached near the Jhuggi situated at Pul Mithai, complainant pointed out towards the accused. Accused was apprehended and on enquiry he disclosed his name as Pintu Paswan. IO made enquiry from him and arrested him vide memo Ex. PW2/C. The personal search of the accused was taken vide memo Ex. PW2/D. Accused had made a disclosure statement before IO which was recorded vide Ex. PW4/A. They searched for the iron patti (piece of sheet) in the bushes near the Jhuggi but it was not found. Thereafter, they searched for the other associates of the accused namely Ramu and Nanua but the said persons were not found. Thereafter, the accused was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital and he was medically examined. The accused was sent to lockup. His statement was recorded by the IO.
Cross examination of this witness was recorded as NIL as no suggestion was put to this witness despite being afforded opportunity in this State V/s Pintu Paswan (Convicted) Page 6 of 13 FIR NO. 102/2011: PS: Bara Hindu Rao ; U/s 324/509/34 IPC DOD: 19.02.2015 regard.
09. PW5 HC Shyam Singh has deposed that on 25.11.2011, he was posted at Police Station Bara Hindu Rao. On that day, complainant namely Sh. Pradeep S/o Sh. Mahesh came to Police Station and got his statement recorded at about 05:30 PM. ASI Nawazish Raza prepared endorsement on the statement of the complainant and gave the same to the Duty Officer for registration of the FIR. Thereafter, complainant, ASI Nawazish Raza and himself, proceeded to the spot situated at Pul Mithai at Avantika Bai Chowk crossing. Complainant pointed out the place of occurrence and ASI Nawazish Raja prepared the site plan Ex. PW2/B. In the meantime, Ct. Mahender came at the spot and gave copy of FIR with original rukka to the IO ASI Nawazish Raja for investigation. They started for searching for accused. When they reached near the Jhuggi situated at Pul Mithai, complainant pointed out towards the accused. Accused was apprehended and on enquiry he disclosed his name as Pintu Paswan. IO made enquiry from him and arrested him vide memo Ex. PW2/C. The personal search of the accused was taken vide memo Ex. PW2/D. Accused had made a disclosure statement before IO which was recorded vide memo Ex. PW4/A. They searched for the iron patti (piece of sheet) in the bushes near the Jhuggi but it was not found. Thereafter, they searched for the other associates of the accused namely Ramu and Nanua but the said persons were not found. Thereafter, the accused was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital and he was medically examined. The accused was sent to lockup. His statement was recorded by the IO.
Cross examination of this witness was recorded as NIL as no suggestion was put to this witness despite being afforded opportunity in this State V/s Pintu Paswan (Convicted) Page 7 of 13 FIR NO. 102/2011: PS: Bara Hindu Rao ; U/s 324/509/34 IPC DOD: 19.02.2015 regard.
10. PW6 Dr. Yogesh Sharma, CMO, Casualty of Bara Hindu Rao Hospital who proved the MLC No. 8012/11 of Pradeep as Ex.PW6/A. In this cross examination, he stated that he had no seen the doctor while he had examined the injured not the said MLC was prepared in his presence.
11. PW7 SI Nawajiz Raza is the IO who deposed that on 24.11.2011 he was posted at Police Station Bara Hindu Rao. On that day, at about 3 am, he received DD no. 5A Mark X regarding quarreling and snatching of Rs. 1500/. He along with Ct. Parveen went to the spot where he came to know injured Pardeep, his brother went to Hindu Rao Hospital. He along with Ct. went to Hindu Rao Hospital where he obtained MLC no. 8012/11 of Sh. Pardeep. Injured also met them but could not give statement due to severe pain. Thereafter, they returned to Police Station. Duty constable produced one pullanda containing the blood stained clothes, which he seized vide seizure memo. (seizure memo is not available in judicial file. On checking it was found that same is available in the police file. Seizure memo is Ex. PW7/A1.
On 25.11.2011 injured Pardeep himself arrived in the Police Station and gave his statement, which is Ex. PW2/A. On the complaint he made endorsement Ex. PW7/A and gave to DO for registration of FIR and getting FIR registered DO handed over him copy of FIR and Original Tehrir. He along with complainant reached at the spot i.e. Pul Mithai, Near Avanti Bai Statute and prepared site plan at State V/s Pintu Paswan (Convicted) Page 8 of 13 FIR NO. 102/2011: PS: Bara Hindu Rao ; U/s 324/509/34 IPC DOD: 19.02.2015 the instance of complainant Ex. PW2/B. They tried to search the accused as well as case property along with HC Shayam Singh and Ct. Mahender. In the meantime, one person came over there and complainant pointed out that he is the person who committed the offence along with his associates. They apprehended him who revealed his name as Pintoo Paswan. After interrogation he arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW2/C and PW2/D. He also recorded disclosure statement Ex. PW4/A. They tried to search the iron blade used for committing the crime but could not find. After completion of investigation he prepared challan and submitted to the court through SHO.
12. PW8 Sh. K V Singh is the medical record clerk who deposed that he is working in the aforesaid hospital since 1989. Dr. Vinod was working in their hospital left the hospital and present whereabouts is not known. He is acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Vinod as he had seen him writing and signing during the ordinary course of his duties. He has seen the MLC Ex. PW6/A who opined that nature of injuries is simple at point D to D1 on Ex. PW6/A. Cross examination of this witness was recorded as NIL as no suggestion was put to this witness despite being afforded opportunity in this regard.
13. This is all as far as prosecution evidence in the matter is concerned.
Arguments advanced and case law relied upon :
State V/s Pintu Paswan (Convicted) Page 9 of 13
FIR NO. 102/2011: PS: Bara Hindu Rao ; U/s 324/509/34 IPC DOD: 19.02.2015
14. I have heard arguments advanced by both the sides at length and have also perused the material available on records.
15. It is argued on behalf of accused that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant.
16. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Accused Pintu Paswan is charged for the offence punishable u/s 324 IPC on the allegations that he alongwith other coaccused Ramu and Nanua (absconding since then) voluntarily gave blow of pointing out thing to complainant namely Pradeep Kumar and caused injuries to him. Accused was also charged for the offence punishable u/s 509 IPC on the allegations that he alongwith other coaccused named above utters abusive words with intention to insult the modesty of women Payal and Neha.
18. To prove the charge against accused, prosecution examined as much as eight witnesses in the present case. I perused the testimonies of all these witnesses. PW2 Pradeep Kumar, injured examined as eye witness by prosecution who has categorically deposed in the witness box that " in the meantime, three boys came to them and started molesting Payal and Neha. He State V/s Pintu Paswan (Convicted) Page 10 of 13 FIR NO. 102/2011: PS: Bara Hindu Rao ; U/s 324/509/34 IPC DOD: 19.02.2015 and Dharmender resisted for the same but on that all those three boys started abusing them. Out of those three boys, accused present was known to him prior to the incident. Accused Pintu took out some sharp edged weapon from his pocket and attacked with it on the right side of his abdomen. He also attacked on his left hand. In the above quarrel, his cash of Rs. 1500/ belonging to him also fell down. Accused alongwith his two other associates ran away from the spot. His brother namely Rajesh was at the spot and took him to the hospital".
19. The PW3 Dharmender is also examined as an eye witness. He has also categorically deposed in the witness box that they started abusing him. They also teased/chera chari the said girls. He tried to intervene but they had beaten him. The two boys caught hold Pradeep and one boy attacked on him with pointed out thing. PW6 Dr. Yogesh Sharma proved the MLC Ex. PW6/A of injured Pradeep and has deposed that injured was brought by his brother and on local examination there was a incised wound approximate 15 x 0.5 cm on right side of abdomen and abrasion on the forearm of the left hand. The doctor has opined the injury as simple in nature.
20. The PW7 Retired SI Nawajis Raza, IO of this case who examined by the prosecution has proved the factum of arrest and collection of evidence durng the investigation of this case. The defence of the accused is that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the eye witnesses. It is also State V/s Pintu Paswan (Convicted) Page 11 of 13 FIR NO. 102/2011: PS: Bara Hindu Rao ; U/s 324/509/34 IPC DOD: 19.02.2015 submitted that as per the testimony of witness when the incident was took place at about 3.00 am, it was dark and there was no street light. Therefore it is very difficult to identify the accused in the darkness. I also perused the cross examination of PW2 and PW3. Injured has categorically answered that he simply gave the description of accused to the police officials, thereafter they arrested the accused and he identify the same person who attack on 24.11.2011. He also denied the suggestion that accused was not known to him prior to the incident. He also admitted that he asked Rs. 20,000/ from the accused as compensation to the injuries sustained by him.
21. The PW3 Dharmender in his cross examination has also deposed that he identified the accused present in the court when he was beating him. He also deposed that all the three accused started misbehaving with them when they opposed and Pradeep was attacked with sharp object and he was crying/weeping and injured Pradeep became unconscious and he called his brother Rajesh who took him to the hospital. In view of the testimonies of eye witnesses and medical opinion given by the doctor this Court of the view that as contradictions pointed out by the defence are minor in nature and does not prejudice the case of the prosecution. Neither the accused has lead any evidence in his defence to the fact that no such incident as alleged has happened on the day and time as mentioned in the case nor he has lead any evidence as to why he is falsely implicated in this case. State V/s Pintu Paswan (Convicted) Page 12 of 13 FIR NO. 102/2011: PS: Bara Hindu Rao ; U/s 324/509/34 IPC DOD: 19.02.2015
22. In view of my above reasons, this Court is of the considered view that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Pintu Paswan stands convicted for offence u/s 324/509/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court (Pooran Chand)
on 19.02.2015 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Central District:Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
State V/s Pintu Paswan (Convicted) Page 13 of 13