Delhi District Court
Ms. Saroj Bala (Advocate) vs Sh. Bhupinder Singh (Advocate) on 30 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAL SINGH, ASJ02/FTC, NEW DELHI
DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Case ID No. 02403R0261722010
Criminal Appeal No. 53/12
Ms. Saroj Bala (Advocate),
D/o Sh. Attar Singh,
Chamber No. 929, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi ........... Appellant
versus
1. Sh. Bhupinder Singh (Advocate),
Chamber No. 928, Patiala Houe Courts,
New Delhi. ....Respondent no. 1
2. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ....Respondents No. 2
Date of institution of the case : 06.08.2010
Date when the case reserved for judgment : 21.04.2012
Date of announcement of judgment : 30.04.2012
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 05.07.2010 passed by Ld. MM, New Delhi in case titled as State vs. Bhupinder Singh & Ors. in FIR No. 537/2003, PS Tilak Marg, under section 509 IPC, whereby the Ld. MM had acquitted the respondent CA No. 53/12 1/9 No.1/accused for the offence u/s 509 IPC.
The brief facts of the case are that on 19.11.2003 the appellant/ complainant Ms. Saroj Bala had given a complaint at PS Tilak Marg. It is stated in the complaint that the respondent no. 1/accused uttered harsh words and filthy languages upon the appellant/complainant. On the complaint of the appellant/ complainant the FIR No. 537/03 was registered in the PS Tilak Marg, against the respondent no. 1/accused u/s 509 IPC. The respondent no. 1/accused Bhupinder Singh was challaned for the commission of offence u/s 509 IPC.
Notice u/s 251 Cr. P.C for the offence u/s 509 IPC was framed against the respondent no. 1/accused Bhupinder Singh vide order dated 03.11.2009 by the Ld. Trial Court, to which respondent no. 1/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case had examined four witnesses in all, namely PW 1 HC Onkar Mal, PW 2 Saroj Bala, PW 3 SI Arun Chauhan and PW 4 SI Raj Kumar. The Ld. Trial Court acquitted the respondent no. 1/accused for the offence u/s 509 IPC and also dismissed the application u/s 216 Cr. P.C filed by the complainant. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.07.2010, whereby the respondent no. 1/accused was acquitted, the appellant preferred the present appeal.
I have heard the arguments on behalf of the appellant as well as on behalf of the respondents. Appellant as well as Ld. counsel for the CA No. 53/12 2/9 appellant submitted that the Ld. trial court had wrongly acquitted the respondent no. 1/accused Bhupinder Singh. Ld. counsel for the appellant further submitted that the offence u/s 509 IPC has been made out against respondent/accused Bhupinder Singh and the Ld. trial court did not appreciate properly the testimony of the appellant who was examined as PW2 in the trial court.
On the other hand, respondent no. 1/accused Bhupinder Singh as well as his counsel vehemently denied the allegations made by the appellant. Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1/accused submitted that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court and the respondent no. 1/accused has been rightly acquitted by the Ld. Trial Court. Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1/accused further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent no. 1/accused as there is no evidence against the respondent no. 1/accused for the alleged offence. Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1/accused submitted that on the contrary it was the appellant who had given false complaint against the respondent no. 1/accused, so as to harass him unnecessarily. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and also gone through the written submissions filed by the appellant as well as on behalf of respondent no. 1/accused Bhupinder Singh.
PW 1 HC Onkar Mal had proved the FIR in the present case vide Ex. PW 1/A. PW 3 SI Arun Chauhan stated that investigation was CA No. 53/12 3/9 handed over to him after the registration of FIR. PW 3 alongwith complainant went to the Chamber No. 929, Patiala House Courts for site inspection and he prepared the site plan Ex. PW 3/A at the instance of the complainant.
PW 4 SI Raj Kumar stated that during the last of December 2003 or starting of January 2004, he was posted as SI at PS Tilak Marg and the investigation of the case was handed over to him by SI Arun Chauhan. During the course of investigation, he met complainant Saroj Bala in her chamber. Complainant Saroj Bala handed over to him photocopies of documents, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 4/A. He deposed that he examined many people regarding the incident, but none agreed to be a witness, as they all belong to same profession.
The present appellant/complainant Saroj Bala, had been examined as PW 2 and she was examined at length. PW 2, who is the only material witness in the present case, deposed that on 19.11.2003 she was putting a keel in her chamber no. 929, Patiala House Courts in order to hang a curtain and at that time respondent no. 1/accused advocate Bhupinder came into her chamber and asked her to stop the thak thak and why she was making noise and otherwise she would get a slap and he called her haramjadi. PW 2 had also made a complaint on 100 number and PCR van came there and she pointed out accused to the PCR officials. PW 2 stated that she had purchased the chamber in the year 2002 and there was CA No. 53/12 4/9 a very little space in front of her chamber. PW 2 further stated that she put her table near the grill, infront of her chamber, so that no one should spit outside her chamber and in the park. The appellant further stated that after the compromise one common dustbin was lying infront of the chamber of Sanjiv, where one client spitted again and on her objection Bhupinder came out and told her that the dustbin would remain at the same place and the garbage would also remain as it was.
Appellant submitted that on 02.07.2003, Sanjiv, Bhupinder, S.B. Dandapani and one typist Surya Prakash Mish gave false complaint against her in NDBA. The typist gave complaint regarding theft of his chair. All the four complaints were marked as Mark A1 to A4. On the said complaint Bar Association sealed her chamber and notice dated 03.07.2003 was pasted inside her chamber. She submitted that she had signed the order of NDBA as she wanted desealing of her chamber and in the said order she was told that she should not remove the door of her chamber. The appellant further submitted that on 09.07.2003, she was sitting inside her chamber in the lunch hour then Bhupinder and Sanjiv washed their hands outside her chamber and the water was flowing towards her chamber's side and their clients were spitting outside her chamber. PW 2 was examined at length before the Ld. Trial Court and in her deposition she had made various allegations against respondent no. 1/accused, pertaining to different dates. In her deposition PW 2 stated CA No. 53/12 5/9 that on 19.11.2003, advocate Bhupinder came to her chamber and abused her. On this, she made a call at 100 number and lodged the FIR No. 537/2003 of this case in PS Tilak Marg u/s 509 IPC. In her complaint dated 19.11.2003, it is stated that when she was putting nail (keel) in her chamber in order to put curtain and at that time advocate Bhupinder Singh from the chamber no. 928 came to her chamber and told the appellant that tu yaha keel thok kar kyo thak thak kar ke shor kar rahi hai, isse band kar nahi to thappad khayegi, haramjadi kahi ki. In her complaint she further alleged that advocate Bhupinder Singh told her that he will not let her to sit peacefully in her chamber. She further alleged in the complaint that before that also advocate Bhupinder Singh alongwith his advocate friends quarreled with her and leveled false allegation of theft upon her, so as to defame her. She further alleged in her complaint that she was not allowed to sit and work peacefully in her chamber by the respondent no. 1 Bhupinder Singh. The appellant had reiterated her allegations made in the complaint against the respondent no. 1 Bhupinder Singh, in her deposition when she was examined as PW
2. Respondent no. 1/accused while examining him u/s 313 Cr. P.C pleaded that he is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and further pleaded that the complainant had filed the complaint just to harass him and advocates, so that she can shift the real CA No. 53/12 6/9 issues of the dispute into a personal matter.
The respondent no. 1/accused produced evidence in his defence and examined DW 1. DW1 in his deposition stated that there was no incident occurred between the respondent no. 1/accused Bhupinder and complainant Saroj Bala. In his crossexamination also DW 1 denied that there was dispute between the appellant/complainant and respondent no. 1/accused Bhupinder Singh regarding the constuction of the chamber and in which the respondent no. 1/accused alleged to have had abused the appellant/complainant. He further deposed in his cross examination that the complainant made false complaint against the accused for concealing her mischief. DW 1 denied that respondent no. 1/accused had abused the appellant/complainant.
In the case of Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 166, wherein it was held that defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. And, courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelieve in defence witnesses. Quite often, they tell lies, but so do the prosecution witnesses.
Therefore, the evidence of DW 1 cannot be discarded simply being saying that he is an interested witness. The defence witnesses also deserves equal treatments. In the present case DW 1 categorically stated that nothing was happened before him and the respondent no. 1/accused Bhupinder Singh had not abused the appellant/complainant. Moreover, CA No. 53/12 7/9 DW 1 specifically stated that the appellant/complainant had made a false complaint against the respondent no. 1/accused Bhupinder Singh.
The prosecution had examined only four witnesses in the present case. The present appellant, who is the complainant, was examined as PW 2. Other prosecution witnesses are formal police official witnesses. The prosecution had not examined any other independent or public witnesses. Hence, the testimony of PW 2 requires close scrutiny. PW 2 was examined at length. In her deposition, PW 2 stated that there was a dispute between her and the respondent no. 1/accused regarding construction of the chamber. It has come in evidence that there was dispute between the appellant and the respondent no. 1/accused regarding the construction of chamber and spreading of filth in the vicinity of the chambers. The appellant had made many complaints before and after the alleged incident. After going through the testimony of appellant, it is amply clear that she had not only narrated regarding the alleged incident of 19.11.2003, but had also tried to cover her entire dispute with the respondent no. 1/accused Bhupinder Singh. Ld. trial court rightly observed that incidents which took place after the alleged incident of 19.11.2003 would be beyond the scope of the present case. The present case is registered for the alleged incident of 19.11.2003. The main dispute between the appellant and respondent no. 1/accused appears to be regarding construction of chamber and filth in the vicinity of the CA No. 53/12 8/9 chambers of the appellant and respondent no. 1/accused. It is also clear that there was animosity between the parties relating to some construction carried out in the Chamber and filth around the chamber. Moreover, DW1 had categorically stated that no incident was occurred on 19.11.2003 as alleged by the appellant/complainant. Further, except the appellant/complainant the prosecution has not examined any other independent/material witnesses who would also substantiate the allegations of the appellant/complainant. The prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the respondent no. 1/accused. The Ld. trial court had rightly acquitted the respondent no. 1/accused Bhupinder Singh.
Therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal and same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Trial court record be sent back alongwith the copy of this judgment.
Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (LAL SINGH)
on 30th April, 2012 ASJ02/FTC, PHC/ND
30.04.2012
CA No. 53/12 9/9