Delhi District Court
State vs Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr. on 10 January, 2020
State v. Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV MEHTA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NORTH) 05,
ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr.
FIR No. 175/09
PS SB Dairy
U/s 323/325/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1 Serial No. of the case : 5283560/16
2 Date of commission : 13.07.2009 3 Date of institution of the case : 07.01.2010 4 Name of complainant : Sh. Dharambir
5 Name of accused : 1. Manish Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Permanand Gupta,
2. Veena Gupta W/o Sh.
Manish Kumar Gupta.
6 Offence complained of : U/s 323/325/34 IPC 7 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 8 Arguments heard on : 06.01.2020 9 Final order : Accused Manish Acquitted u/s 323/325/34 IPC Accused Veena acquitted u/s 323/34 IPC Digitally signed by 10 Date of judgment : 10.01.2020 VAIBHAV VAIBHAV MEHTA MEHTA Date:
2020.01.17 16:48:21 +0530 FIR No. 175/09 PS SB Dairy 1 of 12 State v. Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 13.07.2009 at about 10.30 am, accused Manish Gupta caused grievous injury to the complainant Sh. Dharambir as a result of which his tooth got broken and both accused further caused hurt to the abovesaid complainant. Accordingly the FIR u/s 325/323/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons.
CHARGE
2. Prima facie case of commission of offences under Section 323/325/34 IPC was made out against accused Manish Gupta and u/s 323/34 IPC qua accused Veena Gupta and charge was framed upon both the accused on 25.09.2012 wherein they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION U/S 294 Cr.PC
3. During the course of evidence, joint statement of both accused was recorded under section 294 Cr.PC wherein they did not dispute the identity of certain documents and admitted the same in terms of section 294 Cr.P.C. Accused had admitted the following FIR No. 175/09 PS SB Dairy 2 of 12 State v. Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr.
document:
(i) FIR NO. 328/14 as Ex. PX1;
(ii) DD No. 29B dated 17.03.2014 as Ex. PX2;
(iii) Mechanical Inspection report as Ex. PW1/K;
(iv) Excise Report as Ex.PW1/L;&
(v) RC of vehicle as Ex. PX3.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PROSECUTION
4. The prosecution has examined eight witness.
PROSECUTION WITNESS
PW1 HC Rajbir Singh Duty Officer
PW2 Ct. Abhay Assisted the IO
PW3 Dharamvir Complainant
PW4 Satish Relative of complainant
PW5 Dr. Jyotsana Medical Officer
PW6 Dr. Ashish Kapoor Dentist
PW7 ASI Malwa Ram IO of the case
PW8 Dr. Yudhvir Singh Proved MLC
5. Prosecution has relied upon the following documents: Exhibited by Contents Exhibits PW1 Copy of FIR and endorsement PW1/A & PW1/B on rukka FIR No. 175/09 PS SB Dairy 3 of 12 State v. Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr.
PW2 Seizure memo PW2/A
Arrest memos PW2/B & PW2/C
Personal search PW2/D
PW3 Statement PW3/A
PW5 MLCs PW5/A and
PW5/B
PW7 DD NO. 16A PW7/A
Tehrir PW7/B
Site plan PW7/C
6. PW1 HC Rajbir Singh proved the registration of FIR no.
175/09 as Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW1/B.
7. PW2 Ct. Abhay deposed that on 13.08.2009, on receiving of call regarding quarrel, he alongwith IO HC Malwa Ram went to the spot and met complainant Dharambir and took him to hospital where accused persons were also present and examined by the doctor after while the doctor handed over one sealed pullanda to the IO and same was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A and on 18.07.2009 both accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW2/B to PW2/D respectively.
8. PW3 Dharamvir deposed that he narrated whole incident to the police and police recorded his statement and proved the same as FIR No. 175/09 PS SB Dairy 4 of 12 State v. Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr.
Ex. PW3/A. PW3 identified both the accused in the court.
9. PW4 Satish deposed that on 13.07.2009 at about 10.30 am, he came to know that someone had quarreled with his uncle Dharamvir and saw the accused persons kicking and punching Dharambir by pinning him down to the floor and his uncle Dharambir was bleeding from his mouth and he tried to intervene but accused persons alongwith two workers caught hold of him and started beating him also and abused him in filthy language.
10. PW5 Dr. Jyotsana proved the MLC no. 1947 and 1946 as Ex. PW5/A and PW5/B.
11. PW7 ASI Malwa Ram deposed that on 13.07.2009, he received of DD NO. 16A regarding quarrel and he proved the DD NO. 16A as Ex. PW7/A and also proved the tehrir as Ex. PW7/B and stated that the prepared site plan and proved the same as Ex. PW7/C.
12. Thereafter, PE was closed on 23.10.2018.
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
13. Statement of both accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC was FIR No. 175/09 PS SB Dairy 5 of 12 State v. Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr.
recorded on 20.11.2018 separately and they opted to lead defence evidence.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE ACCUSED PERONS (DE)
14. The accused persons have examined two witnesses.
DEFENCE WITNESS
DW1 Manish Gupta Accused himself
DW2 Veena Gupta Accused himself
15. The accused persons have relied upon the following documents: Exhibited by Contents Exhibits DW1 Complaint DW1/A Receipt DW1/B Complaint DW1/C Request letter DW1/D MLC no. 1945 DW1/E Photographs and CD DW1/E U/s 65 B certificate DW1/F Certificate of lal dora DW1/G DW2 CD and transcription DW2/1, DW2/2 U/s 65B certificate of DW2/3 Indian Evidence Act FIR No. 175/09 PS SB Dairy 6 of 12 State v. Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr.
16. DW1 Manish Kumar Gupta and DW2 Veena Gupta deposed that they had not committed any offence as alleged and it was infact the complainant who had caused injuries on the persons of accused Veena Gupta and complaint in this regard was given to the police, however, no action was taken on their complaint. The accused persons have relied upon medical documents and the complaint given by them to the police to prove their innocence.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
17. Section 319 defines hurt as : Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
Section 320 IPC is stated Grievous Hurt: The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "Grievous":
First: Emasculation.
Section: Permanent privation of the sight of either eye,
Third: Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,
Fourth: Privation of any member or joint,
Fifthly: Destruction or permanent imparing of the powers
of any member or joint,
Sixthly: Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly: Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
FIR No. 175/09 PS SB Dairy 7 of 12
State v. Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr.
Eighthly: Any hurt which endangers life or which causes
the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
Section 323 IPC is stated as under: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 325 IPC is stated as under: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven year and shall also be liable to fine.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
18. The Ld. APP for the State has argued that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are consistent and corroborate each other and the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond doubt.
FIR No. 175/09 PS SB Dairy 8 of 12 State v. Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The. Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand has argued that there are serious inconsistencies in the deposition of prosecution witnesses and therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused persons and they should be acquitted in the present case.
COURT OBSERVATIONS:
19. After going through the material on record including the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses, this court makes the following observations:
(a) PW3 Dharambir is the complainant and the main witness of the prosecution who stated that on 13.07.2009 at about 10.30 am, he heard some loud thak thak sound, after which he went outside and saw the accused persons breaking the slab with the help of labourers and after he objected to it accused Manish gave a fist blow on his mount due to which he fell down and his tooth came out.
PW3 has further deposed that thereafter both the accused persons gave fists and kick blows to him, after which he called at 100 number and police took him to MB hospital.
(b) PW3 has stated that on 13.07.2009 itself he handed over FIR No. 175/09 PS SB Dairy 9 of 12 State v. Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr.
the broken tooth to the police which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A.
(c) PW3 Dharambir gave his statement to the police on 17.07.2009 i.e. four days after the alleged incident. The prosecution has not been able to explain the four days delay in giving the statement to the police.
(d) PW2 Ct. Abhay Ram and PW7 ASI Malwa Ram (IO) both have stated in their deposition that it was the doctor who had handed over the broken tooth to the IO in a sealed pullanda. This fact is inconsistent with the testimony of the complainant.
(e) PW3 Dharambir / complainant has admitted in his cross examination that there was previous animosity between him and accused persons.
(f) PW3 Dharambir has in his deposition stated that he lost a lot of blood due to broken tooth as a result of which his clothes got drenched with blood. However, the blood stained clothes of the complainant were not seized by the IO nor they were sent to FSL for examination.
FIR No. 175/09 PS SB Dairy 10 of 12 State v. Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr.
(g) PW4 Sh. Satish is the relatives of the complainant who stated that quarrel took place between accused persons and the complainant inside the house of the complainant. This fact is inconsistent with the statement given by the complainant that the quarrel took place outside his house.
(h) There are serious inconsistencies / contradictions in the testimonies of PW3 Dharambir and PW4 Satish.
(i) DW1 Manish Kumar Gupta and DW2 Veena Gupta have relied upon complaint given to the police w.r.t injuries sustained by Veena Gupta at the hands of the complainant.
Perusal of complaint reveals that the complaint was given by the accused persons to the police on 14.07.2009 whereas the complainant gave his statement to the police on 17.07.2009.
(j) The MLC placed on record by the accused persons show that Ms. Veena Gupta received treatment in MB hospital on 13.07.2009 and she was referred to Ortho OPD.
(k) The photographs placed on record by the accused persons show that the complainant Dharambir however the said photographs do not show whether the photographs were taken on the day of FIR No. 175/09 PS SB Dairy 11 of 12 State v. Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr.
incident or not.
(l) After going though the material on record, this court is of the view that the accused persons have been able to point out serious inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and a sufficient doubt has been created entitling the accused persons to be given the benefit of doubt.
20. For the reasons mentioned above, this court acquits both the accused persons for offences charged against them. They are directed to furnish bail bond and surety bond under Section 437A Cr.PC.
Announced in the open (VAIBHAV MEHTA)
court on 10.01.2020 MM5 (North), Rohini Courts
New Delhi
FIR No. 175/09 PS SB Dairy 12 of 12